> But before we can start our work...
>> The creation and destruction of rooms are now specified as being in the
> scope of JEP-0045, but wouldn't it be more logical to define those
> actions in the new conference JEP?
>> And how do we address a participant if he or she is in a room at the
> second level of a hierarchy? Would it be in the form of:
>>level1.level0 at service.domain.tld/participant ?
Creating and destructing rooms is not outside this JEP since it is dealing
with interactions with the rooms, it just doesnt cover how rooms relate to
each other since that has nothing to do with interaction with a particular
room.
Also isnt it better not to use your:
level1.level0 at service.domain.tld/participant
And just use as intended:
room at service.domain.tld/participant
Even with your hierarchy you do not need to have the whole hierarchy as part
of the address, what if it ends up in lots of levels:
level9.level8.level7.level6.level5.level4.level3.level2.level1.level0 at servic
e.domain.tld
That is just getting silly, when all it needs to be is:
room at service.domin.ltd
How the rooms relate to each other has nothing to do with the room address
itself, and in my opinion should not do, and there is no need for it if you
want to do it properly. Why do you want to do it that way anyway?
Also I still dont see the need for these sub rooms, I can see the need to
group rooms by subject but isnt it better to have a folder like grouping
mechanism like already exists in browse (tipic.com has a folder structured
browse), rather than sub rooms which in my opinion complicate things for
users trying to understand whats going on.
Richard